Google Pixel 2 sample gallery

The Google Pixel's camera is among the best we've reviewed, and the Pixel 2 has already been hailed as class-leading by DxOMark. So even though the bar was high when we set out to shoot with it, the Pixel 2 (and the guts-are-the-same Pixel 2 XL) has left a very positive first impression on us. Take a look at our sample images – unless otherwise noted, they've been shot using the stock camera app with auto HDR+.

Comments

Hmmm looked at the gallery, the technology is getting better, the blurry background doesn't really work for me but clever stuff that is improving all the time, I use a 2014 Nokia 930 which I think is very good indeed, it doesn't attempt or have any of this portrait mode technology and I don't think I want it yet but its getting better, this is just the start and I am sure it is the way cameras will develop, Manufacturers are developing the technology, we have passed the point where a smartphone camera can take a good image (Nokia 930, 1020, 808 did that a few years back) now manufacturers are trying to take it furthur, good try, but I will wait a while before ditching my Nokia just yet

Not even having a camera on my phone, I am thinking of upgrading (lol), I'm wondering why I would need all of my shots to be taken at f/1.8 coupled with the need to use 1/10000 sec for some landscapes. Does seem to go against all of the rules. Am I missing something? Teach me something here.Pics are OK but some dull weather shots would have been useful. Days like those here are rare for much of the year in the UK. High contrast HDR not always the way to go though.

deluk I think the diffraction creeps in if it would be possible to take the picture with smaller aperture. So the picture would be softer and sharpness is lost. In build ND filter would be nice to allow longer shutter speeds.

:With every new phone, photos look more and more HDR fake and unrealistic. It is wholeheartedly abysmal how bad all these sample photos look if they are to be compared to any kind of actual reality. Worse, everyone is getting so used and uneducated about this overcooked look, that its all deemed fantastic! Best DXO score ever.. cough cough.

Now, wouldn't it be wiser, simpler and cut billions in cost and time worth software tricks and hardware imaging processing engines, to instead just use a bigger sensor to kick things off to an actual good start? I have 3 words for all these worldwide mobile photography development gurus:

Why no sample images in HDR+ enhanced mode (previously called HDR+ on, not Auto)?? Previous Google phones had better image quality in HDR+ on mode (now called HDR+ enhanced). With a real camera you take your time to set the aperture, shutter speed, etc and here you can't give us a single "HDR+ enhanced" image?

I hope dpreview gives us some "HDR+ enhanced" sample images in the full review. If it's the same as the previous "HDR+ on" (according to an xda user who looked at the code, it was just renamed), then HDR+ enhanced will have better image quality than HDR+ Auto (this was already the case with the first Pixel). It might be just slower.

Comparing to the iPhone sample gallery, my preference would be the Apple, based on color rendition and contrast. But I feel this is similar to a Kodak vs. Fujifilm sort of debate. Everyone has their own tastes. Apple looks more Kodak. Google looks more Fuji imo.

Some of these portrait shots look terrible. The separation between the woman's hair and the background is so sharp it looks like it's a cutout pasted onto a blurry background. Others look like the algorithm just couldn't figure out what should be blurred and how much so it's a best guess approach that looks right but not really.

Looks perfectly fine on a Full HD phone screen - the sort of device that most people use. That's probably the whole idea behind tech like this. Professional looking pictures directly made on the phone. In seconds. Shared to the world in just as little as that. That's the point. There will always be pixel peepers, but that's not what photography is about for most people.

It's a damn camera phone, so of-course it can't compare to canon and nikon or grey poupon sensibilities. But for what it does, it does well, even with it's shortcomings. Target consumers will be happy.

I just can't like the fake blur. I guess when you rely on auto masking it's subject to errors but this is pretty bad. The very first pic of the woman in the coat, some of her hair is cut off and blurred, in some parts you can see between hairs where the BG was sharp bc the blur mask missed it. The blur transition is rigid as well, very unrealistic.

In the pics with her and the child you can see a lot of noise in the faces and hair, while the BG is noise free due to the blurring. I guess if you are only viewing on your phone its all too small to see but this would drive me crazy as i rarely use my phone to view photos. Im not convinced this fake blur will ever look normal.

When I'm browsing the gallery, image data appear to the right of each image for a split second, and then get immediately *replaced* with Nikon ad ("I AM THE D7500").

I already thought this Nikon campaign you're currently running (site background replaced with "I AM CHASING MOMENTS" with some imagery) was a bit too aggressive -- very in-your-face, irritating... Using ad as a background is one thing. Showing old background and then, after few seconds replacing it with another is a different animal -- that's akin to the infamous blinking text.

The Nikon D750 publicity on the right side of the pics, now makes it impossible to read the exif data and even to download the files, as everthing is now masked by the Nikon advert. I'm using an ipad 4. Bad.

Fairly Impressive for a phone - It's not perfect and maybe the HDRing is a little over the top for my personal taste but impressive nonetheless. I don't understand why the top camera manufacturers with high quality sensors are so resistant to putting decent CPUs into their camera bodies, if they took on computational photography, even with a 1 inch sensors, add some modern software smarts, they could blow everything away/

I would normally say that 'possibly' this, and 'maybe' that and IMHO etc. But this is absolutely the ugliest gallery I have seen on DPR. Not a single image worth a damn; nothing looks real, every single image looks and feels like an invented approximation of the scene. The pictures look to be designed to maximise immediate visual impact; but not really representative of the subject matter.

It's a phone, so what's it doing here on a photography site? Making money of course, because the effing images are beside the point.

IMO fastlass is implying that your completely negative and disappointed comment means that you are suffering from depression and can't enjoy anything in life, which you should consult on the Lifeline.Too bad that explaining jokes ruins them...

"IMO fastlass is implying that your completely negative and disappointed comment". Quite right, but if that is a joke then it's of the playground variety.

Meanwhile, back in the adult world, we are talking about the truly awful images produced from a phone; and how that phone is relevant for photographers. But hey, dumb and crass wisecracks - that's what counts, right?

Now being normal DPR reader: HDR+ is trying to preserve so much highlight detail that it's incredibly hurting the shadows. The shadows go almost b&w in key areas, not to mention noise. I would rather keep more shadow information/tonality and midtones rather than show off no clipping.

Sharpening algorithm is not good. And same with the local unsharp mask, not good. Too fake. Many colours are over saturated by TONS and show no gradients at all. Nothing like say a Canon or a Nikon Jpeg colour Engines, or apple's for that matter.

Detail seems a bit off on most photos, strangely it looks like very minor kind of motion blur not lens/sensor resolving issue. Don't know. Maybe my monitor.

Bokeh: "Good enough" for the target audience. On Instagram in FB. It looks real enough on a small screen without peeping edges, nobody does that viewing a girl's picture (or do they?)

Ouf, 3 or 4 years ago, we wouldn’t even be having the discussion. Now, quite obviously, we are having the discussion. Not everyone agrees, but that is par for the course. But both sides are right. Yes, a small pocketable camera can do better. But this is worthy of a discussion, when one takes into consideration the images come from a smartphone.

I disagree actually. Why do we need a discussion when everybody already has a phone? IMO anybody who is on DPR and owns a large sensor ILC isn't likely to fall in love with phone IQ, and anybody who is into phone photography already doesn't need to be convinced. They were already going to buy it.

This is another issue i have with fake bokeh. What if you want DOF control for things other than portraits, how does the camera know what you want? With real aperture and DOF control, it's consistent, i don't need programs to guess for me.

Well i wouldn't exactly say it "works", even with portraits it has it's own problems. But with non portraits where face recognition can't be used, it's completely impractical. The bike shot shows exactly what im talking about.

The DOF control seemed to work the best for things that had gradual falloff, rather than something in the front and something in the back. It looked pretty good on the cameras receding into the distance and the sandwich, and there were no obvious artifacts like there were on the bike and the hair.

Pretty astounding DR for a mobile- multiple exposure merging on the fly? Better DR than iPhone 8, also with colours which seem true in hue if a little over saturated.

Oh, btw dpr images are pretty compromised on detail. But when will an image taken on one of these ever be viewed 2000 px wide from two inches away from thw screen? They'rw going to FB, snap and Insta' people !

The image quality and style from each photo varies widely. There are some photos that are atrocious when it comes to post processing. It has the tendency to lift all the dark areas showing the chroma noise reduced shadows. Bokeh simulation should also be left disabled.

Looking the Pixel XL gallery, I prefer the photos produced by this device over the Pixel 2. There is no wild or little PP involved and the larger sensor somehow helps.

I recently have the S8+ and the performance is not far from the Pixel 2, only varying in post processing. I just wish we can have control over the sharpening and noise reduction.

@Johan What do you use for shooting DNG, the Lightroom app? I've tried it but when I shoot in HDR, it is interestingly slow to import a photo. Any idea how it shoots the DNG with HDR? Does it take multiple shots or is it simply a DNG with automatic post processing?

holy smokes (and mirrors), this is supposed to be the groundbreaking image quality of phones these days?

I just zoomed in to 100% (grassy hill with people) and its shockingly bad. Grainy, smeary low detail totally oversharpened and saturated. People want their pics, their captured moments to look like that? Unbelievable....

Sam wrote: "But it is still better than any other phone out there." Who cares?

It honestly boggles the mind. Seriously, who cares about the best if best still means trash?

Images taken by phones are supposed to be snaps, completely forgettable slices of time, where IQ is of zero importance. All it matters is the content.

When not forgettable snaps, people will capture their beloved ones (people, pets, important places or even things) with cell phones, to remember them. IQ is also of minor importance, because what matters is the memory of those you love.

Who seriously cares about noise or DR in a picture of your grandma, or a long gone loving pet?

In case high quality is paramount, no cell phone on Earth will be enough, you already know that.

You know you need to bring a real camera if actual quality is wanted.

I completely fail to understand where "great" cell phone IQ has a place.

That was an hilarious rant. Imagine if the world only revolved around YOUR opinion. Question is... why would anyone want crappy photos of their loved ones? For years the cameras on smartphones took muddy, pixelated, dark photos where you wouldn't even be able to tell which relative you were standing next to at a family event. You wouldn't be able to tell whether one photo was downtown Seattle or downtown Hong Kong. With today's phones you get great images that are properly exposed and have almost no noise compared to just a couple of years ago.The most used photographic tool of the past few years has been the Apple iPhone. That's just one type of smartphone. You can imagine how many other smartphones make the list.If a smartphone is the only device you currently have on you for taking a photo and you want good images then you want the best tech that will get you those images. Most of the world doesn't bring their good camera gear with them wherever they go.

I've encounter plenty of people using their phone for convenience and complaining about low light noise / lack of dynamic range (they don't call it that way, more like "my pictures are crap in nightime")

In fact, most of those people also have a dedicated camera (compact or small DLSR) but the convenience of the smartphone and the lackluster auto-mode (especially unreliable autofocus in video) and connectivity on those make them prefer to shot with their smartphones ! What the point of a high bit-rate video coming from a big sensor if the entire footage is badly stabilized with pumping or missed focus ? What the point of owning a Full Frame beast if you don't have it during the best moments of your life ? (which most of the time are unplanned)

I guess there is a real market for smart cameras : bring the computational photography in big sensor cameras ! Or bring a smartphone with 1-inch sensor !

Quite a feat. But:I have a hard time finding fault in the results of the Samsung S8 / Plus / Note or the iPhone 8 / 8 Plus or 7 Plus for that matter to be honest. And I hear there are even more excellent ones out there (HTC and LG flagship devices)Take your pick..

Nice compositions, indeed, but something seems wrong. I compared these pictures with some of my recent photos taken with the original Pixel XL at 100 percent, and mine look much sharper and have much less smear at the same ISO.

If this is the "cutting edge" of smartphone image quality, then I as an enthusiast photographer will happily continue shooting with my "real" dedicated cameras. Even my compact old Olympus XZ-2, easily beats the Pixel 2 in terms of image detail, and its images don't look half as "smeared" at low ISOs. NR effects are still much too strong for my liking on the Pixel 2. Just look at the black cat sample photo - no fur details at all ... the high resolution is wasted in most scenes.But then, the phone seems to get useful and well-colored photos even at night, which is good to see.

That said, as an emergency camera or for people who just shoot images for social media, the quality is well enough for sure. I'm just not that person.

@Sam, that's a faulty argument that many people make but it still doesn't hold water. If what you say was viable, then ask pro sports photogs why they don't use smart phones.

There's no denying that skill helps with any genre of shooting but there's also no denying that in many ways, the hardware is the limiting factor regardless of skill. Or are you really saying the pros at sporting events have no skill?

> Can you read your email on your Olympus?I never had the desire to do so ... or play games on it. Really.For this I could buy a 200€ smartphone + a premium compact and still have some money left for accessories compared to the Pixel 2.

Dedicated cameras and phones with camera simply aren't competitors. I just made my remark because dpreview always touts how good the smartphone images are from the new XYZ model ... and yet they aren't good in absolute terms imho.

I'd be tempted - *very* tempted - but I'm not sure it's worth it for all the Google spyware that comes with it. Or the Apple spyware on the iPhone, for that matter. They gather so much personal data about us, they should pay *us* to carry these things around.

Just download the Google Camera HDR+ app. Depending on the hardware you have, you'll get about 90% of the IQ shown here. love it on my Asus Zenfone 3 Zoom. Huge upgrade in IQ, though it hasn't been modded to switch cameras yet. The RAWs are much better than the stock camera app, too!

I hate to admit it, being a pro photographer, but except for the fake portrait shots, these images all look incredible for full-auto, straight out of camera (er, phone). I spend considerable time and resources processing DSLR images in Lightroom from pro photographers, with the goal of ending up with this final look. To have a phone just get it right without any legwork should really be a wake-up call to SoCaNikon. So far only the EOS-M comes anywhere near "kind of close" to this level of intelligent automatic image acquisition, and it isn't that close.

what's preventing them from including multi-core processors and 4 GB of RAM into their top of the line cameras? I don't think that this is a hardware issue. Instead, these traditional camera makers are struggling with the software part of the equation.

The first Pixel and the Nexus 5x/6p (in HDR+ on mode) have better image quality than these Pixel 2 sample images in my opinion. But apart from this I agree. Out-of-camera jpgs from Aps-c cameras often look worse.

Totally agree, I am not sold on the fake portrait mode either (yet!!) BUT the lack of PP required on smartphones now is amazing, I use a 2014 Nokia 930 and I never need to touch my shots in PP, metering is generally spot on, colours look great, I too make a living from photography and the time I spend tweaking and adjusting my Nikon D7200 shots after every shoot drives me crazy, infact even a great camera like the D7200 takes dull lifeless images at default JPEG settings, I have it set up pretty much as I need it now, but I still end up adjusting contrast, lifting shadows etc on virtually every shot, just not required on my Nokia 930 smartphone, smartphones are putting "real cameras" to shame in many ways

The portrait mode on the Apple dual cameras is far from perfect, but here it seems to rarely work in any sort of convincing way. Apple's depth measurement is often fooled by transparent objects [such as glasses], but edges in isolated subjects here are just a mess.

I think they all look pretty good - except for the ones with portrait mode - which are awful. Granted, the instant masking process that goes on in the phone to accomplish this is very clever and fast.But the end result is dreadful - to anyone who is familiar with a picture actually shot with a wide aperture lens.The average punter will not notice or care.

Question for Samsung/Android users, do their products save the better camera features for their "plus" models only? I'm an Apple user and would like the camera features of the plus model but I don't want a phablet in my pocket.

Samsung appears to use the same main camera in S8, S8+ and Note 8, but only the Note has a second portrait camera. I have the Note 8 and don't use that portrait camera since the image quality of the main camera is better and has RAW support.

For Apple, definitely. They've only fit the second camera in the Plus versions. And you need that for telephoto and portrait mode. For the Pixel 2, it seems that there is no differentiation in the cameras or features.

Their single-lens fake depth processing seems to have some significant issues. Note the hooded sweatshirt the guy is wearing in the sample photo. The hood goes from sharp to full background blur in zero seconds flat.

You don't know what I know, but you seem to know nothing about HDR+. HDR+ is not just HDR, it is an algorithm that makes a camera sensor behave like a larger one and it's fundamentally different from HDR algorithms. You don't get this benefit from raw images of the Nexus/Pixel. Raw files from Google phones often can not compete with HDR+. HDR+ is not a handicap.

"You don't know what I know, but you seem to know nothing about HDR+. HDR+ is not just HDR, it is an algorithm that makes a camera sensor behave like a larger one and it's fundamentally different from HDR algorithms. "

This says a lot about what you don't know.

" Raw files from Google phones often can not compete with HDR+. HDR+ is not a handicap."

Now perhaps in 10-15 years those multiple images can all be recorded within say 1/500 - 1/100 of a second. But now that's not possible. Therefore HDR imaging can be a real handicap in many everyday situations.

You don't know much about digital imaging.

"And 3rd party apps for shooting raw is not an Apple thing at all. Google phones could shoot in raw before iPhones could do that."

True, Android phones had raw before iPhones, but one didn't need a 3rd party application to access raw.

While HDR does the image look more "impactful", I would love to see some samples with HDR turned off, because in the iPhone 8 pictures, I preferred the ones with no HDR for most scenes - calmer on the eyes

Not trying to be picky - but setting the record straight - subtle colour tones, like subtle differences in variant green and blue hues are not exhibited like they would be with a high end lens and camera combination. This includes especially monotonous colour tone in shadow recovered detail. Granted, the greatest distinction of colour is provided with higher end lenses (e.g. Leica) and system cameras.

Google Pixel 2 background blur processing is so good, even an experienced artist may find it difficult to do better having 20 minutes to work on a single image.

However, the reproduction is still not like the dimensional look with gradual blur in most portrait lenses, providing a momentous "look" to the image.

Colors suck. The iPhone 8+ Gallery is much better in comparison, although even these iPhone images have poor color rendition. Somehow these image galleries of both the iPhone and the Pixel phone seem unnatural, kind of over-processed. I do like much more the look of classic cameras, even phone cameras, which do less background-processing.

Do you have specific images you are comparing from one to the other? It seemed to me that the Pixel gallery didn't have any photos in conditions that were as challenging as the iPhone gallery, so I'm not sure there is a good comparison to be made.

Are you kidding me? It looks as though the photographer was intentionally trying to find the most challenging scenes possible for the Pixel... All that backlit, mixed lighting, high contrast is not easily captured. The iphone gallery is much more "ideal" in terms of conditions. Regardless, look at the indoor tungsten shots in the iphone gallery; they're far too warm. This is a point for the pixel.

On this week's episode of The New Screen Savers from the TWiT Network, DPReview Science Editor Rishi Sanyal talks with host Leo Laporte and co-host Megan Morrone about some of the newest tech trends in smartphone cameras.

For the past few weeks we've been running a series of polls to find out what you - our readers - think of the major product releases of 2017. It's time to announce the winners of the first round of voting!

Apple and Google both offer improved Portrait Modes in their latest devices, but the two manufacturers take somewhat different approaches. Take a look at side-by-side shots to see how they square up and learn about the technologies behind them.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Nikon Z6 may not offer the incredible resolution of its sibling, the Z7, but its 24MP resolution is more than enough for most people, and the money saved can buy a lot of glass. Find out what's new and notable about the Z6 in our First Impressions Review.

Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.

The SiOnyx Aurora is a compact camera designed to shoot stills and video in color under low light conditions, so we put it to the test under the northern lights and against a Nikon D5. It may not be a replacement for a DSLR, but it can complement one well for some uses.

At its core, the Scanza is an easy-to-use multi-format film scanner. It offers a quick and easy way to scan your film negatives and slides into JPEGs, but costs a lot more than similar products without a Kodak label.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite photographic gear released in the past year in a wide range of categories. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to pick the best overall product of 2018.

Sony had the full-frame mirrorless market to itself for nearly five years, but it's no longer alone – the Nikon Z6 and Canon EOS R have both arrived priced to compete with the a7 III. We take a head to head to head look at these three cameras.

As if it needed one, the triple-camera smartphone might really be the final nail in the compact camera's coffin. DPR contributor Lars Rehm brought the LG V40 on a hiking trip recently and found it to be a huge leap forward in terms of creative freedom.

Renowned UK-based landscape photographer Nigel Danson has been using DSLRs for years. In this video, created exclusively for DPReview, Nigel discusses his experience using the Nikon Z7 and why he's excited about mirrorless cameras. (Spoiler... beautiful scenery ahead.)

Chinese optical manufacturer Kipon has added the Nikon Z and Canon R mounts to its range of adapters made to attach medium format lenses from Hasselblad, Mamiya, Pentax and others to full frame cameras.